Benghazi, David Petraeus, Michael J. Morell and the Destabilization of the Obama Administration

Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash drive that can be obtained here.[3] (The flash drive includes the anti-fascist books avail­able on this site.)

COMMENT: The ginned-up non-scandal surrounding the Benghazi attack is beginning to clarify, and our ruminations concerning the Petraeus affair[4] and the succession of Michael J. Morell to the position of acting CIA director are becoming increasingly prescient.

Some of the bullet points that we made in the context of the Petraeus affair:

Petraeus was going to be questioned about the Benghazi affair behind closed doors. Does this impinge on the Benghazi situation? Might this be connected to the “October Surprise II”[6] that the GOP was crowing about last fall?

In the above context, note that negative headlines are dominating in the wake of Obama’s re-election.

The acting head of the CIA is Michael J. Morell, who gave Dubya his intelligence briefings and was actually with him on 9/11[8]. Some observers were critical of Morell as being too much of an insider to effectively counteract abuses at the agency. Is this the agency “re-righting itself”–i.e. cleaning out an outsider? (The agency was initially reported to be leery of Petraeus, only coming to accept him when he adopted a “hands-off” approach to intelligence matters and CIA.)

On a highly speculative note, we’ve read of Nazi generals named Morell during our research into the Third Reich. I wondered if Morell might be an Underground Reich insert when I heard he was acting head of CIA and being considered as director. A legend would have been created to obscure his Nazi/German/Underground Reich background. This suspicion grew more profound when I saw Morell’s picture. Again, this is admittedly highly speculative. Look at Morell’s picture at right and see what you think.

Will Morrell work with the GOP and Underground Reich against Obama?

Since that analysis was posted, we have learned that Morell is of German-American extraction. One wonders if his ancestors might have been part of the large German-American Fifth Column in the United States, encompassing such organizations as the Steuben Society and the German American Bund. (Under Cover[9]by John Roy Carlson, available for download on this website, details that milieu.)

The thrust of the GOP charges in the Benghazi incident are allegations that the Obama administration denied that the attack was a terrorist incident and deleted references to CIA warnings in their report.

It has now become clear that it was none other than Michael J. Morell who deleted the references to the terrorist warnings! He was opposed by David Petraeus in this attempt!

Do not fail to note that Petraeus was then sacked, leaving Morell in charge of the CIA! (Again, it was Morell who gave George W. Bush his intelligence briefings and was actually with him at the time of the 9/11 attacks.)

At the same time, the whored-out American media are up in arms over the Justice Department’s seizing of reporters’ phone records. The phone records concern a story that contained leaked material about a counter-terrorism sting in Yemen.

Who leaked that material? Might it have been Michael J. Morell, or someone else linked to the Bush administration/GOP/Underground Reich?

We note that that seizure of phone records could be precisely calculated to inflame the media.

The suspicion in these quarters centers on the 2012 leak as part of the pre-calculated destabilization of Obama.

EXCERPT: E-mails released by the White House on Wednes­day revealed a fierce inter­nal jostling over the government’s offi­cial talk­ing points in the after­math of last September’s attack in Beng­hazi, Libya, not only between the State Depart­ment and the Cen­tral Intel­li­gence Agency, but at the high­est lev­els of the C.I.A.

The 100 pages of e-mails showed a dis­agree­ment between David H. Petraeus, then the direc­tor of the C.I.A., and his deputy, Michael J. Morell, over how much to dis­close in the talk­ing points, which were used by Susan E. Rice, the ambas­sador to the United Nations, in tele­vi­sion appear­ances days after the attack.

Mr. Morell, admin­is­tra­tion offi­cials said, deleted a ref­er­ence in the draft ver­sion of the talk­ing points to C.I.A. warn­ings of extrem­ist threats in Libya, which State Depart­ment offi­cials objected to because they feared it would reflect badly on them.

Mr. Morell, offi­cials said, acted on his own and not in response to pres­sure from the State Depart­ment. But when the final draft of the talk­ing points was sent to Mr. Petraeus, he dis­missed them, say­ing “Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this,” adding that the heav­ily scrubbed account would not sat­isfy the House Demo­c­rat who had requested it.

“This is cer­tainly not what Vice Chair­man Rup­pers­berger was hop­ing to get,” Mr. Petraeus wrote, refer­ring to Rep­re­sen­ta­tive C. A. Dutch Rup­pers­berger of Mary­land, the top Demo­c­rat on the House Intel­li­gence Com­mit­tee, which had asked Mr. Petraeus for talk­ing points to use with reporters in dis­cussing the attack on Beng­hazi.

The White House released the e-mails to reporters after Repub­li­cans seized on snip­pets of the cor­re­spon­dence that became pub­lic on Fri­day to sug­gest that Pres­i­dent Obama’s national secu­rity staff had been com­plicit in try­ing to alter the talk­ing points for polit­i­cal reasons.

While the e-mails por­trayed White House offi­cials as being sen­si­tive to the con­cerns of the State Depart­ment, they sug­gest that Mr. Obama’s aides mostly medi­ated a bureau­cratic tug of war between the State Depart­ment and the C.I.A. over how much to dis­close — all under heavy time con­straints because of the demands from Capi­tol Hill. The e-mails revealed no new details about the administration’s evolv­ing account of the Sept. 11 attack, which killed four Amer­i­cans, includ­ing Ambas­sador J. Christo­pher Stevens. . . .